No. Two people observing the same event is not "reproducing" anything. To be reproducible, the observation would have to be made by different people on different occasions. That's why eyewitness accounts are such poor evidence. The only reliable way to observe the past is through the artefacts that it leaves behind.
It's a reproduced event, Every time. There's no way around this. And flaming is against the rules. I suggest you refrain from it.
No..the witnessing of the event is multiple--ie. not one event. Hence they are reproduced occasions of witnessing the event. This is basic common sense. And this is why multiple eyewitness accounts that corrobrate each other are such strong evidence.
Certainly - I will request James to post the full content of what he stated here, out of respect for him having said that in the privacy of the Moderators forum. I will also advise James R to review the infraction I am issuing you for continued Trolling and failure to follow the previous warnings he gave you.
The witnessing of one event is still one event. That's mathematics, son. You can't argue with mathematics. Multiple witnesses may have similar biases, they may collude, etc. - which is why eyewitness testimony is so unreliable.
You dont know? You too were instrumental in giving some number out of 95, because you were of the opinion that paddoboy had sound science knowledge....quite ludicrous. I am not whinning, you are arrogantly scrapping around.
Kittamaru, This one is bad, you are an active participant in this fight, you cannot infract. Yes you can recommend to James or other Mod.
Ah, so you are complaining about infraction points? I believe the rules tell you what to do if you disagreed... ah, what do you know, they do. Yep, you are whining. Oh, really? Hum, I must have missed that in our rules - surely you can point out where that is said?
Yes, and one that was reproduced by two different people. Which is why it is so "unreliable" in court trials, news reports, and history. Yeah..so unreliable. lol!
Just so it is on record in case you attempt to edit it... you are now saying that the witnessing of one event by two different people is the same as said event being carried out by two people.
So a rule must tell you that when you fight with a member vociferously, and when that member takes you on with same vigour, it is absolute abuse of your power as Mod to infract him. That's a looser's play.
That's not what reproduction means. It isn't. Innocent people get convicted by lying witnesses. The courts would much rather have hard evidence. I used to work at a police academy and I was involved in an experiment about eyewitness reports. Somebody ran into the room and took something out of somebody else's gym bag. He was described as tall and short, dark-haired and light-haired, wearing a black or blue or red jacket. He took a camera or a book or a wallet. (In fact, he took nothing.) That's your "reliable" eyewitness testimony.
And yet criminals get arrested and convicted on eyewitness testimony all the time. So damn unreliable...lol!
I do believe I said I already submit it to James R for review - if you feel that is somehow insufficient, or that I otherwise acted inappropriately, I suggest you take it up with the Administration, rather than whining about it in public (which is something the Site Rules do, in fact, cover)
Criminals also get arrested without eyewitness testimony all the time... and innocent people are convicted (and even sentenced to death) on incorrect, falsified, or otherwise erroneous eye-witness testimony. Yes, I would say that is rather unreliable - it ends innocent lives. You are making a solid claim here - support it. I counter that eye witness misidentification has resulted in numerous erroneous convictions: https://www.innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/ Further evidence for the problems with eye-witness testimony: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/photos/eye/text_06.html Some additional reading: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/ http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/WhatWouldYouDo/story?id=4521253 https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/aug/18/eyewitness-evidence-wrongful-conviction https://public.psych.iastate.edu/gl...yewitness_Identification_ A_Policy_Review.pdf All come to a strikingly similar conclusion - eye witnesses memory is easily misled by bias and other influences, and is far too unreliable to be given the weight it currently has. So... 73% of the 239 wrongful convictions - 175 innocent people sent to prison for crimes they did not commit. And that's just of these 239 cases that have been retried.
Doesn't even come close to the number of convictions of the guilty based in eyewitness testimony. Those must number in the tens of thousands.